Related articles |
---|
[11 earlier articles] |
Re: Pascal vs C style string ? jhallen@world.std.com (1994-06-28) |
Re: Pascal vs C style string ? larryr@pa.dec.com) (1994-06-28) |
Re: Pascal vs C style string ? boehm@parc.xerox.com (1994-06-28) |
Re: Pascal vs C style string ? cjmchale@dsg.cs.tcd.ie (1994-06-29) |
Re: Pascal vs C style string ? nandu@cs.clemson.edu (1994-06-29) |
Re: Pascal vs C style string ? Theo.Norvell@comlab.oxford.ac.uk (1994-06-30) |
Re: Pascal vs C style string ? guerin@IRO.UMontreal.CA (1994-06-30) |
Re: Pascal vs C style string ? synaptx!thymus!daveg@uunet.uu.net (Dave Gillespie) (1994-06-30) |
Re: Pascal vs C style string ? nickh@harlequin.co.uk (1994-07-01) |
Re: Pascal vs C style string ? mps@dent.uchicago.edu (1994-07-05) |
Newsgroups: | comp.compilers |
From: | guerin@IRO.UMontreal.CA |
Keywords: | C, design |
Organization: | Universite de Montreal |
X-Newsreader: | TIN [version 1.2 PL2] |
References: | 94-06-175 94-06-211 94-06-215 |
Date: | Thu, 30 Jun 1994 19:15:20 GMT |
[re counted versus null terminated character strings, and a comment pointing
out that counted strings can contain any values]
: True, but *character* strings should only contain valid
: *characters*. The real moral of the story is that you should be using
: a data representation appropriate to the data to be represented. :-)
: If you want to deal with arrays of bytes, you should deal with
: arrays of bytes. :-)
But this way you are duplicating code. If string and array of bytes can
use the same underlying code, it is a good deal no ? :-)
What about *characters* ? This is another question. But you should know
that even C do use control char. Plain characters only are not very useful in
today's world of real applications.
Frederic
--
Return to the
comp.compilers page.
Search the
comp.compilers archives again.